Learning to Refine with Fine-Grained Natural Language Feedback

Recent work has explored the capability of large language models (LLMs) to identify and correct errors in LLM-generated responses. These refinement approaches frequently evaluate what sizes of models are able to do refinement for what problems, but less attention is paid to what effective feedback for refinement looks like. In this work, we propose looking at refinement with feedback as a composition of three distinct LLM competencies: (1) identification of bad generations; (2) fine-grained natural language feedback generation; (3) refining with fine-grained feedback. The first step can be implemented with a high-performing discriminative model and steps 2 and 3 can be implemented either via prompted or fine-tuned LLMs. A key property of this approach is that the step 2 critique model can give fine-grained feedback about errors, made possible by offloading the discrimination to a separate model in step 1. We show that models of different capabilities benefit from refining with this approach on the task of improving factual consistency of document grounded summaries. Overall, our proposed method consistently outperforms existing end-to-end refinement approaches and current trained models not fine-tuned for factuality critiquing.

Detection and Measurement of Syntactic Templates in Generated Text

Recent work on evaluating the diversity of text generated by LLMs has focused on word-level features. Here we offer an analysis of syntactic features to characterize general repetition in models, beyond frequent n-grams. Specifically, we define syntactic templates and show that models tend to produce templated text in downstream tasks at a higher rate than what is found in human-reference texts. We find that most (76%) templates in model-generated text can be found in pre-training data (compared to only 35% of human-authored text), and are not overwritten during fine-tuning processes such as RLHF. This connection to the pre-training data allows us to analyze syntactic templates in models where we do not have the pre-training data. We also find that templates as features are able to differentiate between models, tasks, and domains, and are useful for qualitatively evaluating common model constructions. Finally, we demonstrate the use of templates as a useful tool for analyzing style memorization of training data in LLMs.

Do they mean 'us'? Interpreting Referring Expressions in Intergroup Bias

The variations between in-group and out-group speech (intergroup bias) are subtle and could underlie many social phenomena like stereotype perpetuation and implicit bias. In this paper, we model the intergroup bias as a tagging task on English sports comments from forums dedicated to fandom for NFL teams. We curate a unique dataset of over 6 million game-time comments from opposing perspectives (the teams in the game), each comment grounded in a non-linguistic description of the events that precipitated these comments (live win probabilities for each team). Expert and crowd annotations justify modeling the bias through tagging of implicit and explicit referring expressions and reveal the rich, contextual understanding of language and the world required for this task. For large-scale analysis of intergroup variation, we use LLMs for automated tagging, and discover that some LLMs perform best when prompted with linguistic descriptions of the win probability at the time of the comment, rather than numerical probability. Further, large-scale tagging of comments using LLMs uncovers linear variations in the form of referent across win probabilities that distinguish in-group and out-group utterances. Code and data are available at https://github.com/venkatasg/intergroup-nfl .

Robo-Instruct: Simulator-Augmented Instruction Alignment For Finetuning CodeLLMs

Large language models (LLMs) have shown great promise at generating robot programs from natural language given domain-specific robot application programming interfaces (APIs). However, the performance gap between proprietary LLMs and smaller open-weight LLMs remains wide. This raises a question: Can we fine-tune smaller open-weight LLMs for generating domain-specific robot programs to close the performance gap with proprietary LLMs? While Self-Instruct is a promising solution by generating a diverse set of training data, it cannot verify the correctness of these programs. In contrast, a robot simulator with a well-defined world can identify execution errors but limits the diversity of programs that it can verify. In this work, we introduce Robo-Instruct, which brings the best of both worlds -- it promotes the diversity of Self-Instruct while providing the correctness of simulator-based checking. Robo-Instruct introduces RoboSim to synthesize a consistent world state on the fly by inferring properties relevant to the program being checked, and simulating actions accordingly. Furthermore, the instructions and programs generated by Self-Instruct may be subtly inconsistent -- such as the program missing a step implied by the instruction. Robo-Instruct further addresses this with InstAlign, an instruction-program alignment procedure that revises the task instruction to reflect the actual results of the generated program. Given a few seed task descriptions and the robot APIs, Robo-Instruct is capable of generating a training dataset using only a small open-weight model. This dataset can then be used to fine-tune small open-weight language models, enabling them to match or even exceed the performance of several proprietary LLMs, such as GPT-3.5-Turbo and Gemini-Pro.

Which questions should I answer? Salience Prediction of Inquisitive Questions

Inquisitive questions -- open-ended, curiosity-driven questions people ask as they read -- are an integral part of discourse processing (Kehler and Rohde, 2017; Onea, 2016) and comprehension (Prince, 2004). Recent work in NLP has taken advantage of question generation capabilities of LLMs to enhance a wide range of applications. But the space of inquisitive questions is vast: many questions can be evoked from a given context. So which of those should be prioritized to find answers? Linguistic theories, unfortunately, have not yet provided an answer to this question. This paper presents QSALIENCE, a salience predictor of inquisitive questions. QSALIENCE is instruction-tuned over our dataset of linguist-annotated salience scores of 1,766 (context, question) pairs. A question scores high on salience if answering it would greatly enhance the understanding of the text (Van Rooy, 2003). We show that highly salient questions are empirically more likely to be answered in the same article, bridging potential questions (Onea, 2016) with Questions Under Discussion (Roberts, 2012). We further validate our findings by showing that answering salient questions is an indicator of summarization quality in news.

Large Language Models are Capable of Offering Cognitive Reappraisal, if Guided

Large language models (LLMs) have offered new opportunities for emotional support, and recent work has shown that they can produce empathic responses to people in distress. However, long-term mental well-being requires emotional self-regulation, where a one-time empathic response falls short. This work takes a first step by engaging with cognitive reappraisals, a strategy from psychology practitioners that uses language to targetedly change negative appraisals that an individual makes of the situation; such appraisals is known to sit at the root of human emotional experience. We hypothesize that psychologically grounded principles could enable such advanced psychology capabilities in LLMs, and design RESORT which consists of a series of reappraisal constitutions across multiple dimensions that can be used as LLM instructions. We conduct a first-of-its-kind expert evaluation (by clinical psychologists with M.S. or Ph.D. degrees) of an LLM's zero-shot ability to generate cognitive reappraisal responses to medium-length social media messages asking for support. This fine-grained evaluation showed that even LLMs at the 7B scale guided by RESORT are capable of generating empathic responses that can help users reappraise their situations.

Large Language Models Produce Responses Perceived to be Empathic

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated surprising performance on many tasks, including writing supportive messages that display empathy. Here, we had these models generate empathic messages in response to posts describing common life experiences, such as workplace situations, parenting, relationships, and other anxiety- and anger-eliciting situations. Across two studies (N=192, 202), we showed human raters a variety of responses written by several models (GPT4 Turbo, Llama2, and Mistral), and had people rate these responses on how empathic they seemed to be. We found that LLM-generated responses were consistently rated as more empathic than human-written responses. Linguistic analyses also show that these models write in distinct, predictable ``styles", in terms of their use of punctuation, emojis, and certain words. These results highlight the potential of using LLMs to enhance human peer support in contexts where empathy is important.

FactPICO: Factuality Evaluation for Plain Language Summarization of Medical Evidence

Plain language summarization with LLMs can be useful for improving textual accessibility of technical content. But how factual are these summaries in a high-stakes domain like medicine? This paper presents FactPICO, a factuality benchmark for plain language summarization of medical texts describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are the basis of evidence-based medicine and can directly inform patient treatment. FactPICO consists of 345 plain language summaries of RCT abstracts generated from three LLMs (i.e., GPT-4, Llama-2, and Alpaca), with fine-grained evaluation and natural language rationales from experts. We assess the factuality of critical elements of RCTs in those summaries: Populations, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes (PICO), as well as the reported findings concerning these. We also evaluate the correctness of the extra information (e.g., explanations) added by LLMs. Using FactPICO, we benchmark a range of existing factuality metrics, including the newly devised ones based on LLMs. We find that plain language summarization of medical evidence is still challenging, especially when balancing between simplicity and factuality, and that existing metrics correlate poorly with expert judgments on the instance level.

InfoLossQA: Characterizing and Recovering Information Loss in Text Simplification

Text simplification aims to make technical texts more accessible to laypeople but often results in deletion of information and vagueness. This work proposes InfoLossQA, a framework to characterize and recover simplification-induced information loss in form of question-and-answer (QA) pairs. Building on the theory of Question Under Discussion, the QA pairs are designed to help readers deepen their knowledge of a text. We conduct a range of experiments with this framework. First, we collect a dataset of 1,000 linguist-curated QA pairs derived from 104 LLM simplifications of scientific abstracts of medical studies. Our analyses of this data reveal that information loss occurs frequently, and that the QA pairs give a high-level overview of what information was lost. Second, we devise two methods for this task: end-to-end prompting of open-source and commercial language models, and a natural language inference pipeline. With a novel evaluation framework considering the correctness of QA pairs and their linguistic suitability, our expert evaluation reveals that models struggle to reliably identify information loss and applying similar standards as humans at what constitutes information loss.

Language Models (Mostly) Do Not Consider Emotion Triggers When Predicting Emotion

Situations and events evoke emotions in humans, but to what extent do they inform the prediction of emotion detection models? Prior work in emotion trigger or cause identification focused on training models to recognize events that trigger an emotion. Instead, this work investigates how well human-annotated emotion triggers correlate with features that models deemed salient in their prediction of emotions. First, we introduce a novel dataset EmoTrigger, consisting of 900 social media posts sourced from three different datasets; these were annotated by experts for emotion triggers with high agreement. Using EmoTrigger, we evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to identify emotion triggers, and conduct a comparative analysis of the features considered important for these tasks between LLMs and fine-tuned models. Our analysis reveals that emotion triggers are largely not considered salient features for emotion prediction models, instead there is intricate interplay between various features and the task of emotion detection.